Ban is rejected, judges say no one is mistaking Samsung's tablets for Apple ones

U.S. Design Patent D504,889 and its corresponding patents in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere have stirred up a lively debate about patent law in relation to competition. The Apple, Inc. (AAPL) design patent contains precious little text, so it's left to Apple's lawyers to interpret it, and is up to international courts to decide how broad the protected design space is.

I. Does D'889 Grant Apple a Monopoly?

Apple claims D'889 is essentially a blank check to a tablet monopoly. While the pictured device in the 2004-era patent:

...has no buttons and is substantially different from the iPad in bezel size and form factor, Apple says none of that matters. It says it has "invented" the minimalist tablet -- in Apple's words a tablet with "slightly rounded corners,'" "a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation," and "a thin profile" -- and that competitors should not be allowed to produce rival designs of any size. The only unspoken exception is Windows 8 tablets, as Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) owns a favorable cross-licensing deal with Apple.

He writes, "[The Galaxy Tab line] do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design... They are not as cool."

Despite the kind words, the Judge says that 50+ examples of prior art both in the industry and in fictional works show that Apple's 2004 idea was hardly "original". The Judge considered it ludicrous that Samsung be expected to differentiate the front of its device, given that extra face buttons hinder the user interface and that the hardware form factor is almost entirely constrained by the multi-touch display, an industry standard.

Judge Birss says where tablets need to differentiate themselves is in the back face and profile. He found that "unusual details" on the back of the Samsung devices, as well as a thinner profile, made them trivially distinguishable from the iPad.

The Galaxy Tab (left) is substantially different from the iPad (right) according to a UK Judge.
[Image Source: Gadgets and Gizmos]

In short, he argued that Apple's lawyers were completely wrong in their argument that customers would confuse the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for iPads.

His ruling means that there will be no bans and no damages on a design basis. A London court previously ruled that three of Apple's most-asserted EU technology patents were invalid on the grounds of obviousness and prior art, while a fourth was too narrow to sue Samsung and others.

Apple has 21 days to appeal the ruling to higher courts in the UK. Otherwise it risks a complete loss in its UK efforts to kill Android in court. Such a loss could spell a permanent end to the company's slew of suits in the European Union.

Amid the losses in the EU, Apple's bet at banning the competition may be in the U.S. However, it faces some tough tests, such as Judge Richard A. Posner who argues that the U.S. patent system is broken and that Apple is using the broken system to its advantage as a weapon to kill free market competition.

In regards to tablets, Startrek showed concepts of tablets in the 1980's almost 30 years ago.

Microsoft actually released a Windows tablet 10 years ago.

And somehow... The average joe/Apple fans thinks that Apple invented the tablet and everyone is copying Apple.

I think everyone on this planet understands that a Tablet is going to be square, it's going to have a touch screen.HOW are you supposed to differentiate from that fundamental design? By having a hexagonal shaped Tablet? It wouldn't work.This patent is plainly a load of crap.

quote: I think everyone on this planet understands that a Tablet is going to be square, it's going to have a touch screen. HOW are you supposed to differentiate from that fundamental design? By having a hexagonal shaped Tablet? It wouldn't work.

Other companies did a great job doing something different with tablet designs until Apple did their own version: http://i.imgur.com/AQJjc.jpg

Not at all, tablets were rectangular before, they had to be because of the display, but they weren't nearly as simple and stripped down. Open your eyes.

I do think that that the patents are silly, but it cannot be denied that tablet designs went from all of these different and unique form factors to something mimicking the iPad once it was released. Maybe companies should try something unique again instead of trying to get a slice of that iPad market pie by being mere copycats.

huh? what do you mean but simple and stripped down.. all the tablets I used before the ipad (been developing mobile data capture software since 2004)where no different to apples tablet.

They may have been thicker... but that’s because of the technological limitations of the day.

Based on your theory everything should be patented.. even oblivious crap like basic design specifications... damn maybe I should put a patent out on a t-shirt... then I could destory the industry with baseless law suits!

BS. A multitude of buttons on the face, a simple surface that keeps focus on the display, etc etc, the differences between pre and post iPad tablets are so obvious. Before the iPad was popular people were saying that it was merely a large iPod Touch, now they want the exact same thing in their Android tablets.

I have the feeling that you never owned a tablet before your MaxiPad, to give you just one example Motion M1200(11yrs old now)... very similar to apples design specs... rectangle with a sleek design. Yes it is thicker(tech limitations of the time) and has 4 extra buttons on it but.. remember the M1200 is not a toy is an actual PC..

BS. A multitude of buttons on the face, a simple surface that keeps focus on the display, etc etc, the differences between pre and post iPad tablets are so obvious. Before the iPad was popular people were saying that it was merely a large iPod Touch, now they want the exact same thing in their Android tablets.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007